That's evidently what this is, somebody trying to insert Micheal Moore disinformation into this article, and the cite doesn't support his claim or Michael Moores. RobS 23:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Constitutional right or human right?

Before me and AmeriCan start an edit war over this, I would invite him/her to readlthis. These are your human rights. Right to bear arms is not one of them. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, grants a constitutional right to bear arms. The two are different. Sorry for any misunderstanding. --Wikinterpretertalk?

I could also point out the 2nd amendment gives the militia the right, not the individual. Further, there is no "right" to produce and sell firearms--in case anyone cares. Flippin 13:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The United Nations (an anti-semitic organization) doesn't know a damn thing about human rights. It's the gang that stood by and watch the genocide in Rwanda! The right to own a firearm, is based on the right to self-defense, i.e., the right to those means to defend oneself against those who wish to destroy one's life. The right to self-defense is itself is a corollary of the right to life. This is common sense! -- AmeriCan 21:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Wuh? The organisation that set up the state of Israel in the first place is anti-semitic?

'doesn't know a damn thing about human rights'

If it doesn't, who does? Brightest minds of a generation, Eleanor Roosevelt and co, came together to write that declaration. I would trust them to know about human rights.

'It's the gang that stood by and watch the genocide in Rwanda!'

No it wasn't. The USA refused to give support, and France, China and Russia believed that it was 'an internal affair' and thus it was wrong for the UN to be involved. 4/5 security council permanent members against? Pretty strong responsibility for those four. Dallaire actually wanted to intervene.

'The right to own a firearm, is based on the right to self-defense, i.e., the right to those means to defend oneself against those who wish to destroy one's life. The right to self-defense is itself is a corollary of the right to life.'

Woo, first actual bit of debate. The UN wouldn't seem to think that it was right to respond until it was actually attacked (UN Charter Article 50-something sets a precedent). Nonetheless, there is no derogation for human rights, especially article 3, i.e. someone does not forefeit their right to life if they try to take yours. Difficult, but ultimately for the best.

'since when does the UN decide things like this?'

Since, uh, the big charter the UN published that says lthese are your human rights. America's signing of the Declaration means that it acknowledged that these were the human rights that all people had. As I said, right to bear arms is not one, so it is not a human right, but, with its mention in the Constitution, it is a constitutional right.

Sorry if I seem confrontational, but I'm tired and feel strongly on this subject. --Wikinterpretertalk?

This is ridiculous. Whether or not the UN has problems with anti-semitism has nothing to do with whether their enumeration of human rights is important. However, as far as I'm aware, even the NRA itself doesn't attempt to claim that the right bear arms is a fundamental human right. JoshuaZ 14:11, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, you can DERIVE a right to own a firearm from natural rights. It is a given that one natural right of human beings is the right to life. To state that negatively, human beings have a natural right not to be killed. Therefore, all human beings have the right to self-defense, as it necessary in order to ensure that their right to not be killed is upheld. To ensure that humans have the right to self-defense, humans need arms to help them fight off an attacker. This is the same logic that is used to explain why states can have a military. The right to continued existence implies a right to self-defense, and a right to self-defense requires a right to be able to fight back.--Elamdri 14:16, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

First of all, that's a very different claim than claiming that it is a natural right. Second that argument in any event has a multitude of problems including that it implies that we have rights to pretty much all weapons. I don't think anyone would try to argue that their is a natural human right to possess nuclear weapons. JoshuaZ 16:21, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I was never claiming that we have a right to possess all weapons. We have a right to "Possess enough power to defend our life should the need arise." Thats a very vague statement, and its purposely vague, as so that we can interpret it to mean what we want it to mean when we need it.--Elamdri 17:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)